Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from People and Nature
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
1382
|
People and Nature. 2024;6:1382–1393.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pan3
Received: 13 October 2023
|
Accepted: 10 April 2024
DOI: 10.1002/pa n3.10 64 6
PERSPECTIVE
Using participatory video in environmental research
Maximilian Nawrath1,2 | Jessica C. Fisher3 | Ingrid Arotoma- Rojas1 |
Zoe G. Davies3 | Helen Elsey4 | Paul Cooke5 | Jayalaxshmi Mistry6 |
Martin Dallimer1,7
1Sustainability Research Institute, Scho ol of Ear th and Environment, Universit y of Leeds, Leeds, UK; 2Water and Society Group, Nor wegian I nstitute for
Water Research (NIVA), Oslo, Norway; 3D urrell Institute for Co nser vation a nd Ecology (DICE), Scho ol of Anthropol ogy and Conser vation, Univer sity of Kent,
Canter bury, UK; 4Depar tment of Health Sciences a nd Hull York Medical School, Univer sity of York , York, UK; 5S chool of L anguages, Cu ltures and Societies,
University of Le eds, Le eds, UK ; 6Department of Geography, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK and 7Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial
College London, London, UK
This is an op en access arti cle under the ter ms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provide d the original wor k is properly cited.
© 2024 The Aut hors. People and Nature published by John Wil ey & Sons Ltd on behal f of British Ecological Society.
Correspondence
Maximilian Nawrath
Email: max.nawrath@niva.no
Funding information
Global Challenges Research Fund,
Grant /Award Number: AH/R005354/1;
H2020 European Research Council,
Grant /Award Number: 726104; Nor sk
Institutt for Vannforskning; Canadian
Instit utes of Health Res earch, Grant /
Award Number: 106372- 003, 004, 005;
Gilchrist Foundation; Natural Environment
Research Council, Gra nt/Award Number:
NE/L002574/1 and NE/L0 02582/1; Royal
Geographical Society; Economic and
Social Re search Council, Grant/Award
Number: ES/J500148/1
Handling Editor: Ian Thornhill
Abstract
1. Tackling environmental challenges that face humanity requires us to acknowl-
edge new ways of working and to cross disciplinary boundaries. However, the
methodological toolkit used by environmental researchers to explore the human
attitudes, knowledge and behaviours that drive global challenges such as biodi-
versity loss and climate breakdown remains constrained.
2. Here, we describe participatory video, a methodology for capturing and commu-
nicating knowledge, which goes beyond interviews, focus groups and participant
observation. We draw from the literature and our own experience of conducting
participatory video projects in Nepal, Guyana and Peru. We demonstrate the di-
verse ways in which the methodology can be applied to environmental research
and highlight its strengths and limitations.
3. Participatory video provides a more holistic understanding of environmental
issues by using multiple types of data, its longer- term engagement with issues,
opening channels of communication between stakeholders, engaging a diversity
of knowledge systems and advocating for transformative change.
4. By taking a participatory video approach, environmental researchers may begin
to counter commonplace criticisms about lack of diversity and entrenched colo-
nialism. This simultaneously responds to wider calls for environmental research
to engage with social justice issues, represent diverse voices, understand differ-
ent contexts and acknowledge the role of power. Crucially, this helps build trust
amongst all those involved.
5. By demonstrating how we have successfully used participatory video in projects
in conservation, ecology and climate science, we provide guidance for research-
ers looking to expand their methodological toolkit. Ultimately, we seek to improve
|
1383
NAWRATH et al.
1 | INTRODUC TION
Human society is threatened by the loss of Earth's biodiversity and
by climate breakdown (Gardner & Wordley, 2019; IPBES, 2019).
These two challenges can only be addressed by promoting equita-
ble and sustainable solutions for both people and the environment
(Pörtner et al., 2022; Raworth, 2017; Sutherland et al., 2018). Public
concern over environmental issues has soared in recent years and is
beginning to influence policy on many levels (Gardner et al., 2020).
However, the demand for certain types of evidence to inform pol-
icy tends to be imbalanced and biased towards the agenda of top-
down decision- makers who prioritise economic prosperity (Robra &
Heikkurinen, 2021). To bring about genuinely transformative change
(a fundamental, system- wide reorganisation across technological,
economic and social factors including paradigms, goals and values,
needed for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity,
good quality of life and sustainable development: IPBES, 20 19),
more emphasis must be placed on understanding the human atti-
tudes, knowledge and behaviours that drive these global challenges.
Integrating this understanding c an make policies both more equita-
ble and effective (Barnett et al., 2016; Sutherland et al., 2018).
Despite increasing assimilation of social science methods into
environmental research disciplines, the methodological toolkit used
to explore human attitudes, knowledge and behaviours remains con-
strained (Bennett, 2016; Sutherland et al., 2018). Participatory re-
search approaches engage different relevant groups in the process,
analysis and/or outcomes, enabling a deeper understanding of these
dimensions. Indeed, participatory methods capture and communi-
cate knowledge beyond the scope of traditional social science meth-
ods such as interviews, focus groups and participant observation
(Mukherjee et al., 2018; Pink, 2014) and can offer important insights
that feed directly into the development of policies and practices.
For instance, involving local communities in the co- development of
species conservation programmes has helped align the interests of
different relevant groups, thereby improving their success and sus-
tainability (Hunter & Heywood, 2012).
Participator y approaches have been applied successfully and
widely in disciplines such as anthropology, geography and public
health fo r many years (Bauman n et al., 2020; O'Donova n et al., 2019).
The environmental social sciences have also had a long- standing en-
gagement with a range of participatory methods, including participa-
tory rural appraisal (Chambers, 1994), participatory mapping (Laituri
et al., 2023), serious games (Madani et al., 2017) and participatory
workshops (Chambers, 2002). However, more traditional partici-
patory methods have several limitations. For instance, researchers
tend to retain control over the methodological design and applica-
tion, which often results in power imbalances between researchers
and research participants (McDonald, 2021). This can be particu-
larly problematic in cases where relevant groups have historically
been marginalised or delegitimised by researchers and other more
powerful actors as part of a knowledge system that centres around
academic privilege (Reed & Rudman, 2023). Further, sensory data,
or data that includes sound (Bates, 2013), environmental context
(MacDougall, 2021), body language and expressions (Grimshaw &
Ravetz, 2009), are often not captured with traditional participatory
methods (Baumann et al., 2020; Murray & Nash, 2017 ). While it is
widely recognised that human attitudes, knowledge and behaviours
affect environmental issues, research methods for capturing contex-
tual details and nuances are limited (Baumann et al., 2020).
Visual participatory methods can address some of these lim-
itations. Although visual methods are widely used within anthro-
pology and sociology (Pink, 2013), their use in environmental
research remains limited. This presents a missed opportunity for
gaining a deeper understanding of the social dimensions of envi-
ronmental issues. Visual, video- based methods such as partici-
patory video expand beyond photos, capturing movements (e.g.
traffic), gestures (e.g. emphatic hand movements) and sounds (e.g.
birdsong) (Baumann et al., 2020), while giving embodied sugges-
tion to concepts like texture (e.g. soft fur) or smell (e.g. slurry; Kaley
et al., 2019). Participator y video is a group- based activity, involv-
ing the creative use of video equipment to produce films as a basis
to explore a specific issue (Shaw & Robertson, 20 08). The visual
aspects of this process can offer a more holistic understanding
of environmental issues compared to insights derived from data
based on verbal or written material (Baumann et al., 2020; Glaw
et al., 2017). Another important aspect of participator y video is
the group- based nature of the approach. The fact that a group of
people works together in cycles of filming, editing and reflecting
can provide substance for deeper learning on a particular issue
(Richardson, 2022). Furthermore, participants can have more
agency over the research process since they can, depending on the
specific approach employed, decide what to film and how to edit
their foot age. This can lead to a better consideration of power dy-
namics between researchers and research participants (Koningstein
& Azadegan, 2021). However, the extent to whic h participants co n-
trol the research process depends on a variety of factors including
the use of participator y methods to help support communities to tackle the envi-
ronmental challenges that they face.
KEY WORDS
biodiversity conservation, climate science, ecology, environmental social science, inclusive,
interdisciplinary, participatory videography, visual methods
1384
|
NAWRATH et al.
the project type, specific aims and the characteristics of the par-
ticipant group. In the messy reality of participatory video practice,
issues of social representation and entrenched power dynamics
are not easily overcome (Shaw, 2016). Employing techniques such
as reflective questioning, rotating leadership roles and structured
feedback sessions can aid in navigating these challenges, promoting
equitable participation and representation (Cornish et al., 2023).
Nonetheless, effectively addressing these issues in participatory
video projects requires continuous attention to social context and
power relations (Egid et al., 2021).
Filming equipment can range from simple mobile phone foot-
age (Mitchell et al., 2018) through to formal, multiple camera set-
ups (Bignante et al., 2016). The rise of affordable and easy- to- use
technology has starkly improved the accessibility of participatory
video in recent years (Schwab- Cartas & Mitchell, 2014). Unlike
typical top- down approaches in research, a key feature of par-
ticipatory video is that it can be set up to support participant s to
critically analyse their own problems and find solutions (Campbell
et al., 2016). Moreover, the process of conducting a participatory
video project can be flexible and adaptable to the needs and avail-
able resources of the researchers and participants (Figure 1). For
the environmental sciences, insight s from participatory video may
be valuable in co- developing sustainable practices/policies and en-
courage participants to reflect on the environmental challenges they
face (Shaw & Robertson, 2008). In North America for example, Bali
and Kofinas (2014) employed participatory video to explore how
social–ecological changes have af fected Indigenous caribou- user
communities. Par ticipants expressed satisfaction that their views
and knowledge were presented more direc tly, rather than the re-
searchers interpreting their messages entirely, as common in other
qualitative research methods. As such, the use of film enabled the
project to contribute both to community and research goals.
Here, we draw from the literature and our own trans- disciplinary
experience of developing and conducting participatory video proj-
ects in environmental research. Using three examples spanning ecol-
ogy, conser vation and climate science to represent different strands
of environmental research, we illustrate how this method c an be
applied, and highlight areas of streng ths and limitations. We then
discuss features that characterise the methodology, which we felt
were pivotal to the choice of participator y video over other method-
ologies, and with the aim of supporting researchers who wish to use
it in their own work.
2 | PARTICIPATORY VIDEO
APPLICATIONS FROM ECOLOGY,
CONSERVATION AND CLIMATE SCIENCE
2.1 | Exploring how greenspaces are linked to
mental health in Kathmandu, Nepal
The prevalence of mental ill- health is rising amongst resident s
of rapidly urbanising low- income countries (Cox et al., 2018). To
investigate the potential of urban greenspaces to improve peo-
ple's mental health in such settings, Nawrath et al. (2021) used
participatory video in combination with focus groups and the
Q- methodology in a sequential mixed- methods study design.
This project worked with participants living in slum settlements
in Kathmandu, Nepal, one of the fastest growing cities in South
Asia (Lamichhane & Thapa, 2012). Many different greenspace
FIGURE 1 Example stages of the
participator y video process (blue) and
data types that c an be produced at each
stage (yellow). The process may involve
any number of stakeholders at any stage
(e.g. participants, facilitators, decision-
makers, wider community, researchers
from within and outside the communit y).
The cycle may be repeated across many
iterations, across different locations and
time periods. Analysis and outcomes
can emerge throughout all stages of the
process. Figure adapted from Berardi
et al. (2015).
|
1385
NAWRATH et al.
attributes can affect mental health, including colours (e.g. green
leaves) and sounds (e.g. bird song). The study participant s were
encouraged to create films about nearby greenspaces. The films
were then screened within focus groups to explore how other
participants perceived the multisensory aspects of greenspaces.
This provided the researchers with much more nuanced insights
into the specific attributes of greenspaces that might be linked
to mental health compared to using verbal or written methods.
In this context, using participatory video removed traditional re-
search barriers such as language and literacy, encouraging a wider
range of people to par ticipate in the project. This was crucial for
successfully representing a diversity of perspectives from low-
income neighbourhoods in Kathmandu, where illiteracy is wide-
spread (Dhakal, 2018).
2.2 | Sharing experiences of green and blue spaces
with decision- makers in urban Guyana
Previously described as ‘t he garden city of the Caribbean’, the capital
of Guyana , Georgetown, s its where the D emerara Ri ver flows into the
Atlantic Ocean and contains numerous urban greenspaces. Recent
discoveries of offshore oil are transforming Guyana's economy,
with demand for infrastructure and housing likely to put pressure
on its green/blue infrastructure. This project explored how people
experienced Georgetown's green/blue spaces using participatory
video (Fisher et al., 2021) and was combined with quantitative
ecological and questionnaire data as par t of a wider mixed- methods
approach (Fisher et al., 2020, 2021). Groups of participants visited
the urban green/blue spaces and set out to capture ‘what affects
your emotions in a positive or negative way?’. Through an iterative
process of filming and discussing this question across 5 weeks, the
participatory video process facilitated participants to reflect upon
how they related to specific aspects of the urban environment and
why they were, or were not, meaningful. Across two further weeks,
a composite film summarising the experiences of participants was
shared with decision- makers including park managers, Government
ministries and the Mayor and City Council. In response, decision-
makers relayed their intentions to change the way the city's green/
blue spaces are managed for the well- being benefit of residents.
2.3 | Indigenous food systems and climate change
adaptation in the Peruvian Amazon
Food insecurity and malnutrition amongst Indigenous Peoples in
the Peruvian Amazon is documented as amongst the worst in the
world (Zavaleta et al., 2018). However, lit tle is known about how
Indigenous Peoples understand and cope with this issue, especially
in the context of climate change (Arotoma- Rojas et al., 2022).
Arotoma- Rojas and the Women Organisation for the Ashaninka
People (OMIAASEC) in the central rainforest of Peru co- designed
a participator y video process in which Indigenous female youth (15
to 25 years old) were trained to understand and communicate past,
current and future risks of their food systems in their communities.
Participator y video was set up over two phases. First, the aims of the
research were introduced, and participant s learned to use the video
equipment. Participants then conducted video- recorded interviews
and participant observation within their communities and began to
uncover past and present changes around their food system. The
second phase involved another workshop where participants shared
their results to OMIAASEC representatives and the researchers,
together identifying key messages about the most pressing issues
affecting their communities, considering climate change and editing
a set of short films around these key messages.
3 | FEATURES OF PARTICIPATORY VIDEO
3.1 | Multiple types of data
Multiple types of data can be outputted from participatory video,
including language- based data (e.g. interviews, focus groups),
visual data (e.g. drawn images of storyboards, or photos used to
elicit discussion, known as photoelicitation), audio data (e.g. re-
cordings from disc ussio ns or in terv iews) and aud io- visual data (e .g .
video and rushes used to create film; Figure 1). These data can
also be used in various ways at different stages of a project. For
instance, stor yboards can be used to stimulate the development
of ideas amongst participants at the projec t outset, and for elicit-
ing discussion amongst the wider community. Similarly, participa-
tory video can be combined with quantitative data to triangulate,
consolidate, and enrich the understanding of environmental is-
sues. For instance, Fisher et al. (2020, 2021) demonstrated posi-
tive relationships between biodiversity and human well- being in
Georgetown's green and blue spaces, but through participatory
video, participants unveiled nuances that might other wise have
been overlooked (e.g. place attachment through historical monu-
ments, fear of crime, cultural beliefs associated with specific spe-
cies). The audio, visual and audio- visual data from participator y
video, therefore, brings additional insights that contribute to the
understanding of environmental issues.
Film created by research participants as the basis for language-
based interviews or focus groups can promote dialogue between
researchers and participants that allow meanings to be revealed
where they are otherwise typically hidden. For instance, Indigenous
communities created films to address gorilla conservation issues in
Cameroon (Amir, 2019). The films highlighted the complexity of the
conservation issues and underlined the challenges of aligning con-
servation targets with the needs of local communities (Amir, 2019).
Using film and gorillas as a plot device enabled the par ticipants to ex-
press contextual nuance to challenges such as marginalisation, mo-
dernity and corruption, therefore, helping to articulate Indigenous
values that might have otherwise been overlooked or misunderstood
by local conservation managers using language- based methods only
(Swanson & Ardoin, 2021).
1386
|
NAWRATH et al.
Beyond the spoken word, participator y video provides unique
insights into the lived experiences of research participants
(Barbour, 2019; Literat, 2013). Video can capture multisensory ex-
periences, the expression of emotions and feelings that are difficult
to communicate through words (Rose et al., 2016), and the articula-
tion of ideas and concepts not easily explained by language- based
methods (Fischer & Young, 20 07; Mitchell & Sommer, 2016; Wills
et al., 2016). For instance, the use of films helped participants to
explore how multisensory experiences of local greenspaces (e.g.
variety of flower colours) affected their emotions and feelings, to
elicit mental health effects (e.g. contributing to at tention restoration
and stress reduction) in Nawrath et al.'s (2021) research in Nepal.
Therefore, participatory video may be particularly useful for un-
packing complex environmental issues through tapping into audio,
visual and audio- visual data in addition to language- based data.
3.2 | Longer- term engagement with
environmental issues
Much environmental social science research is cross- sectional,
capturing snapshots of society through short sur vey periods at
one time interval. While less resource intensive, these approaches
struggle to represent changes (e.g. in severity or complexity) of
systems or issues (Connelly, 2016), which is a key characteristic
of the environmental challenges that face humanity. Moreover,
building trust and relationships with participants can help ensure
that research outcomes are perceived as both fair and socially
just (Saif et al., 2022). Participatory video processes are versatile
in length, taking place across several weeks (Fisher et al., 2021) or
multiple years (Bali & Kofinas, 2 014; Mistr y et al., 2016; Mistry &
Berardi, 2012), dependent on community and research objec tives,
time and resources. The three environmental research participator y
video projects we introduce in Section 2 took place over 4 weeks,
7 weeks and 9 months, respectively. While shor t- term project s
are still more in- depth than cross- sectional research, they are not
without limitations. For instance, particularly in short- term projects,
assumed community consensus can lead to missing differences in
experiences or opinion amongst people, or even silencing of dissent
(Mistry & Shaw, 2021).
Projects that last for much longer, on the other hand, are ad-
vantageous in capturing real depth and complexity. They can reveal
unexpected and previously undocumented findings that are both
complementary and contradictory to the original research aims and
can support building capacity in long- term participants and facili-
tators while becoming integrated into the lives of the communit y
(Mistry et al., 2021). For example, Mistry and Berardi (2012) used
participatory video to develop an integrated conservation and de-
velopment project in Guyana, linking local Indigenous livelihoods
with biodiversity conservation. They engaged community research-
ers over 18 months. Through iterative cycles, the researchers pro-
duced video interviews with various relevant groups, subsequently
screening them to the community at different temporal stages of the
project. The iterative process of mutual reflection, action and feed-
back played a crucial role for gaining important knowledge through-
out the project's extended duration (Mistry & Berardi, 2012). By
affording participant s the time and space to express themselves,
relationships and trust are established between participants and
researchers. This is fundamental to open communication, and thus,
insights from longer- term participatory video projects can pro-
duce more nuanced representations of issues and stronger trust.
In turn, this can contribute to more effective outcomes for policy
and practice through better- representing issues facing the intended
beneficiaries of the research. However, the longer- term nature of
some par ticipatory video projects can be both resource intensive
and time consuming (Marzi, 2021). Despite this, participator y video
can contribute to building towards more creative, informative and
transformative routes to social and environmental change (Mitchell
et al., 2018; Walsh, 2016).
3.3 | Opening channels of communication
between relevant groups and engaging a diversity of
knowledge systems
Helping to tackle environmental challenges requires acknowledging
the biophysical, political and socio- economic processes that
comprise social–ecological systems (Plieninger et al., 2013). The
preparation, collection and dissemination of research that engages
an inclusive and diverse set of voices, while managing the power
dynamic s and being sensitive to the context within which the
researc h is perceived (Reed & Rudman, 2023), is more likely to lead to
legitimate impact and actionable policy outcomes (Cook et al., 2021;
Mueller et al., 2010). Some participatory video projects have shown
successes in this respect. In the Philippines, community members
produced a participator y video on climate change mitigation
measures that was screened to local decision- makers, leading to
stated intentions to push through legislative changes to benefit the
community (Haynes & Tanner, 2015). Likewise, Fisher et al. (2021)
shared a composite film produced by Georgetown residents with
decision- makers, which led to the declared intention to change the
way these spaces were managed for the benefit of people at large.
By design, the par ticipatory video process can lead to negotiated
differences and new, shared understandings between different
groups (Cook et al., 2021; Figure 1). While participatory research
methods acknowledge issues with power, context and diverse
voices more prominently than other social science approaches, the
overrepresentation of certain groups at the expense of others can
still lead to biased research outcomes (Fritsch & Newig, 2012).
In order to produce socially just and equitable research outcomes,
projects should account for variations in race, ethnicity, gender, age
and represent marginalised population groups (Allmark, 2004) . To
date, environmental research often fails to appropriately represent
these needs (Alderman et al., 2012; Shayo et al., 2012). Failing to
include this diversity can have serious ethical and research conse-
quences. It can impede our ability to generalise study findings and
|
1387
NAWRATH et al.
prevent some population groups from experiencing the benefits
of policies (Kukull & Ganguli, 2012). Including a diversit y of view-
points can provide a path for integrating the needs of marginalised
population groups into policy- making processes (Pratt, 2019). For
instance, through broadening the scope of mediums through which
people can communicate (language, audio, visual and audio- visual,
see Section 2.1 Multiple types of data), participatory video enables
involvement from those with physical and sensory disabilities (e.g.
participator y video is more accessible to people with different abil-
ities because of the variet y of mediums that can be employed), psy-
chological difficulties (e.g. to make the lived experiences of people
with disabilities visible; Bezzina, 2022), and to raise awareness of
their marginalised status (Kaley et al., 2019), and communication dif-
ficulties or language barriers (Simpson Reeves & Hinthorne, 2019). In
Nawrath et al.'s (2021) research in Kathmandu, using visual methods
helped facilitate participants with literacy and language difficulties.
Likewise, participatory video can help engage children and youth
in research, particularly those who are not able, or comfortable, with
written or verbal responses (Barriage et al., 2 017), as well as uncover
topics that adults may not have previously considered (Leitch, 2008;
Noyes, 2008). Children and youth often find video methods engag-
ing (Christensen & James, 2008) and enjoyable (Einarsdottir, 2005).
Moreover, participatory video can encourage children and youth
to take active roles in the research process, enhancing their sense
of agency and building capacity (Julien et al., 2013). For example,
in the Peruvian Amazon, Arotoma- Rojas Indigenous female youth
used par ticipatory video to understand and record climate change
related shifts in their food systems. The female youth participants
interviewed community leaders and elders about drivers and con-
sequences of food changes and explored common food practices
using film. The films were then used as a starting point to identify
common issues and solutions for climate related changes in the
food system together with all relevant groups. Using film provided
the female youth participants with knowledge and skills regarding
food system changes and was an opportunity for them to advocate
for climate change adaptation through communicating the films to
decision- makers. This process gave autonomy to the female youth
participants to represent community issues from their own per-
spectives. Participatory video can also help leverage transformative
change through addressing young people specifically. For instance,
Eastwood et al.'s (2023) research in Scotland demonstrates that
participator y video can not only transform the way previously dis-
engaged young people viewed local greenspaces but also how they
use and benefit from it, and ultimately change their behaviours to-
wards it. While the benefit s of conducting inclusive research with a
diverse set of groups outweighs many of the challenges, it should be
acknowledged that it usually is more time and resource intensive and
involves a much larger pool of participants (Walmsley et al., 2018).
As the limited success in tackling environmental chal-
lenges demonstrates, there is a need for engaging local ecologi-
cal and Indigenous knowledge (Pörtner et al., 2022; Tremblay &
Jayme, 2015). Participatory video can facilitate this by integrating
communit y members into the research process, allowing us to tap
into already- existing solutions (Mistry et al., 2021) and new ways
of conceptualising environmental issues. For instance, in Arotoma-
Rojas' research with Indigenous communities in the Peruvian
Amazon, the films produced include guidance for other relevant
groups, e.g. local municipalities and NGOs, as to how they can best
support communities in addressing socio- environmental changes
impacting their food systems. However, it should be acknowledged
that existing power dynamics are sometimes difficult to overcome
and that using participatory video can in fact perpetuate inequalities
(Walsh, 2012). For instance, if not approached carefully, projects can
engage with the most powerful gatekeepers in a given community
or exclude marginalised population groups. Nevertheless, participa-
tory video remains a useful tool to open channels of communication
between relevant groups and to engage a diversity of knowledge
systems in their environmental research.
3.4 | Advocating for transformative change
In participator y video, participants can be involved in the choice of
topics and subjects being filmed, contribute to the filming stage,
provide feedback to film footage, give input into editing or initiate
their own film project without or with minimal outside assistance
(Figure 1; Mistr y & Berardi, 2012). This devolution of the research
agenda to the community means that the ‘researched’, are now
the ‘researchers’ (Milne, 2016). They can thus voice their issues
according to how they feel they should be represented, shape how
they think the data should be used and have a chance to engage
with groups relevant to the issue at hand (i.e. the wider communit y,
decision- makers and researchers; Mitchell et al., 2018). Participating
in the process (e.g. planning the fieldwork, collecting the data,
editing the content, managing a team) can promote local innovation
and transformative change, helping to foster a sense of agency and
build capacity in the community to become social and environmental
advocates (Figure 1; Lunch & Lunch, 2006) that is fur ther supported
by the group- based nature of the approach (Richardson, 2022). In
the process, participants can undergo a process of reflecting upon,
and re- shaping, their personal values, attitudes and behaviours. For
example, Fisher et al. (2021) demonstrated that participants altered
their negative attitudes towards wildlife after taking part in the
participator y video process, through interacting with others and
hearing their views. Indeed, critical reflection of the par ticipatory
video process as a whole is encouraged when interpreting and
communicating dat a and can lead to more thoughtful research
methodologies, such as bet ter consideration of power dynamics
and the ethical implications for dif ferent relevant groups and
audiences (Koningstein & Azadegan, 2021; Plush, 2013). Such issues
are pertinent to the environmental sciences, where commonplace
criticisms include lack of diversity and entrenched colonialism
(Milner- Gulland, 2021; Reed & Rudman, 2023).
The research outputs from participator y video projects are not
limited to peer- reviewed journal articles, policy briefs, or reports
(Shaw, 2012). Indeed, such output s can be typically shelved, hidden
1388
|
NAWRATH et al.
behind inaccessible paywalls (Day et al., 2020) and rarely consumed
by the beneficiaries they seek to represent (ElSabry, 2017 ). In con-
tras t, films produced in the par ticipatory video process can be audio-
visually engaging and are often publicly accessible when there is a
dissemination plan. Fisher et al. 2021), for example, was able to use
film to capture the sounds and colours of Georgetown's green and
blue spaces. These features help engage the audience and are, there-
fore, more likely to result in tangible action leading to transformative
change. Arotoma- Rojas's research output will be a short advocacy-
focused film, co- designed by the local community, that communi-
cates the need for ac tions required by different relevant groups in
relation to adapting their food systems to climate change.
3.5 | Challenges of applying participatory video
Participator y video projects must navigate a complex landscape
of challenges spanning ethical, operational, relational and
methodological issues. These arise from power relations, the
sensitivity of working with vulnerable population groups, and
reconciling the expectations and interests of diverse relevant
groups. Ethical challenges of participatory video lie in power
dynamics within the process, working with vulnerable population
groups, the ownership of data, and the complexities associated
with anonymity in photo/video footage (Moletsane et al., 2008).
The participatory video literature has tended to present the use of
cameras as unquestioningly positive, with little attention to any real-
life issues in the project context (Milne et al., 2012). There is a need
to acknowledge the ‘messy reality of practice’ and to interrogate
the power dynamics inherent in the process (Shaw, 2016). Deciding
who participates must involve careful recognition of power
relations, not only between researchers and participants, but also
between the various groups of participants (Molet sane et al., 2008).
Depending on the project aims, representation must, therefore, be
encouraged from different relevant groups and consideration of
potentially conflic ting agendas of variously positioned project actors
(Shaw, 2016). In Nawrath et al.'s (2021) research in Kathmandu,
one particular challenge was to navigate power relations within
the diverse participant groups. Despite the successful recruitment
of participants from various genders, castes and income brackets,
the participatory video process brought to the forefront power
dynamic s that hindered equal contributions, such as those between
high- caste male and low- caste female participants. In this example,
the difficulty was in how to acknowledge power structures within
the participant groups themselves. This required constant reflection
and adaptation of the research process to effec tively manage how
these power dynamics shaped interactions within the group and
with the researchers.
The identity of facilitators during different stages of the partic-
ipatory video process can make an important contribution to how
positive, equal, or authentic the outcomes are. Involving communit y
members as trained facilitators can reduce negative consequences,
acting as a bridge between the researchers and the researched and
help ease complications surrounding language, cultural sensitivity
and lasting legacy (Mistry et al., 2015). In Fisher et al. (2021), fa-
cilitators were Guyanese student s, thus better reflecting locally
relevant ideas and potentially ensuring better communic ation from
participants. However, the involvement of community facilitators
can also impact trust in the process from wider community partic-
ipants. Carefully managed and transparent ethical procedures for
consent, privacy and confidentiality can help mitigate these issues
throughout the participatory video process (Varghese et al., 2020).
For instance, workshops at the projec t's outset can outline consent
procedures, allowing participants to understand and control the use
of their images and stories, and consent forms can be designed to be
iterative, enabling adjustments based on participants' comfort with
disclosure (Gubrium et al., 2014). Such clear consent protocols that
communicate the project's purpose, process and potential uses can
enhance trust and ensure that all involved groups understand the
goals and expectations of the project (Gubrium et al., 2 014).
Tensions often arise between different agendas in participatory
video projects (Shaw, 2012). For example, between community in-
terests and pre- defined project aims required by funders, or from
the differing expectations and understandings of the participatory
video process. Mistry et al. (20 14) reflect on a par ticipatory video
project in Guyana, which involved local communities, academic re-
searchers and civil societ y organisations from loc al to international
level. This project was initiated by the funders and academic insti-
tutions, with community ownership of the process limited by access
to capacity and technology. Involving all relevant parties from the
initial conception of the project, and accounting for differing motiva-
tions throughout, could help evaluate whether an eventual change in
attitudes or behaviour might be sustained (Mistry et al., 2014). Some
encourage better scrutiny of how the participatory video process af-
fects society beyond the scope of the original project (Milne, 2016;
Mistry et al., 2021). The respective role of relevant groups at dif-
ferent stages of a par ticipatory video project is dependent on each
project's aims. Nevertheless, participator y video can be a useful tool
for contributing to transformative change within and beyond the in-
volved communities. Mechanisms include social learning processes,
where par ticipants not only gain technical skills but also engage in
critical thinking and problem- solving (Plush, 2013); changes in val-
ues and motivations, reflecting on personal beliefs and fostering
empathy and cooperation (Varghese et al., 2020); and dissemination
that leads to transformative change, amplifying voices through local
events, screenings, or online platforms to mobilise action (Eastwood
et al., 2023; Mistry et al., 2023). These mechanisms underscore the
potential of communit y created content to foster ownership and
sustain commitment to project initiatives.
Moreover, working with vulnerable population groups (e.g.
people on low- incomes, children, or people with disabilities) can
expose them to risks as a result of engaging with participatory
video research, leading to further marginalisation or impacting their
well- being (Molet sane et al., 2008). For instance, films that engage
children with sensitive issues such as sexuality and gender- based
violence c an challenge local cultural norms and thus put them at
|
1389
NAWRATH et al.
risk (Moletsane et al., 2008). It is, therefore, crucial for participatory
video projects to reflect on potential risks, mitigating them within
the planning phase and taking responsibilit y for them throughout
the project (Figure 1). In some cases, where participatory video does
not allow for participants to maintain their anonymity, it may not
be the right choice when researching sensitive or stigmatised issues
(Fraser et al., 2022). For instance, Fraser et al.'s (2022) participatory
video project with Indigenous LGBTIQ+ people who had experi-
enced homelessness in Aotearoa New Zealand failed due to the lack
of anonymit y afforded by the method which led to the withdrawal
of most par ticipants. Pseudonyms, actors, or voice- overs may offer
solutions in some cases.
Another ethical challenge involves the ownership of the differ-
ent outputs from the participatory video process. Ownership can
lie with the project leader, researchers, participants who made the
videos or a combination thereof. If participants have ownership
over the films, the researchers have little control over distribution
(Sit ter, 2012), which may impact other potential research partici-
pants, or could violate agreements for copyright or ethical approval
required by research funders or institutions. In Fisher et al. (2021),
participants were given ownership of the film they created and
were encouraged to keep copies (with consent from other mem-
bers of their filming group) but were asked not to share them pub-
licly. Striking a balance between empowering participants by giving
them ownership and maintaining some level of control for ethical
and project management reasons is a complex challenge. It requires
careful negotiation and clear communication between researchers
and participants.
It is critical that all those involved in the participatory video pro-
cess, from academics, through community researchers to decision-
makers, engage with these ethical considerations early and to the
fullest extent possible and that these considerations are reconsid-
ered throughout the project. This will ensure trust is built, there-
fore, maximising the likelihood that the participator y video process
is perceived as socially just by all relevant groups and subsequently
leading to more effective outcomes.
4 | RECOMMENDATIONS AND
CONCLUSIONS
The global environmental challenges that we face today require
interdisciplinary thinking, research and knowledge co- production
to solve. Here, we (a) illustrate how participatory video can be
applied in environmental research projects and (b) shed light on
the advantages and challenges of using participatory video. We
summarise our guidance in Box 1, to encourage environmental
researchers to broaden their methodological toolkit to better tackle
the many global environmental issues in our changing world.
The creativity afforded by the process can also enable partici-
pants to express themselves in a variety of ways, both audio- visually
and verbally. It can be a useful tool for understanding human atti-
tudes, knowledge and behaviours that drive global environmental
challenges. The use of participator y video in environmental research
may, therefore, contribute to wider calls to address environmental
and social justice issues (Reed & Rudman, 2023). We believe these
benefits outweigh many of the challenges of participatory video
such as resource intensiveness. However, as with any research
method, participator y video may not be suitable in all cases, such as
when ensuring anonymity is imperative.
While we hope to shed new light on the use of participatory
video in environmental science, users must be open to transform-
ing typical ways of knowing, working and understanding that are
embedded in the discipline. As well as a stand- alone method, par-
ticipatory video can be used alongside more traditional research
approaches as one way to triangulate, enhance or even contradict
existing knowledge. Further, those engaging with participator y
video outputs must be open to acknowledging its cross- disciplinary
origins. Without this, such work can lead to the emergence of
BOX 1 Take home messages for environmental
scientists.
1. Data based on writ ten material often cannot tell
the whole story. Participatory video generates audio,
visual and video data to enable a deeper, more nuanced
understanding of the environment al issue beyond what
data based on written material can convey. The visual
medium of participatory video captures multisensory
experiences and emotions that are challenging to convey
through written words- based methods alone.
2. Participatory video enhances opportunities to involve
diverse relevant groups. Through broadening the scope
of mediums through which people can contribute (audio,
visual, video), participatory video enables the involvement
of groups such as people with disabilities, psychological
or communication difficulties. It can, therefore, provide
opportunities for marginalised groups to be involved
and thus better represent diverse voices and knowledge
systems.
3. Advocacy is improved through audio- visual engagement.
Films produced in participatory video projects, unlike
traditional research outputs, are engaging and can be
made publicly accessible. Advocacy- focused films can
communicate research findings effectively, potentially
resulting in tangible action.
4. Careful navigation of ethical challenges is required.
Ethical challenges in participatory video include complex
and fluctuating power dynamics, working with vulnerable
population groups, ownership of data, issues around
anonymit y and the legacy of projects. Researchers must
engage with these challenges early on to ensure that trust
is built and that projects are ethically sound.
1390
|
NAWRATH et al.
methodological flaws, misinterpretation of results and unsubstan-
tiated conclusions (e.g. Martin, 2020), and difficulty publishing (i.e.
with journal choice and peer- reviewer exper tise), amongst other is-
sues. To this end, we encourage those working in disciplines with
a long history of using participator y video to work alongside those
within conservation, ecology and climate science, and think about
how inter- and trans- disciplinary teams can, together, help to solve
the global environmental challenges we all face.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Maximilian Nawrath: Conceptualisation, methodology, formal
analysis, investigation, writing—original draft, writing—review
& editing; Jessica C. Fisher: Conceptualisation, methodology,
formal analysis, investigation, visualisation, writing—original draf t,
writing—review & editing; Ingrid Arotoma- Rojas: Conceptualisation,
methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft,
writing- review & editing; Zoe G. Davies: Writing—review & editing,
supervision; Helen Elsey: Writing—review & editing, super vision;
Paul Cooke: Writing- review & editing, supervision; Jayalaxshmi
Mistry: Writing—review & editing, supervision; Martin Dallimer:
Conceptualisation, writing—review & editing, supervision.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
M.N. was suppor ted by the Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC) through the SPHERES DTP (grant number NE/L002574/1)
and by the Nor wegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA). M.D.,
Z.G.D. and J.C.F. were funded by the European Research Council
(ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme (consolidator grant no. 726104). Additionally,
J.C.F. was supported by grants from the RGS with IBG (Dudley
Stamp Memorial Award), Gilchrist Educational Foundation, the
Global Challenges Research Fund (Partnership Development Fund)
and ESRC (ES/J500148/1) and NERC (NE/L002582/1). I. A.- R. was
funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (106372-
003, 004, 005). P.C. received funding from the Global Challenges
Research Fund (AH/R0 05354/1). We thank the two anonymous
reviewers for their useful feedback on our manuscript.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors report there are no competing interest s to declare.
Martin Dallimer is an Associate Editor for People and Nature but was
not involved in the peer review and decision making process.
DATA AVAIL AB ILI T Y STAT EME N T
Data sharing is not applicable to this ar ticle as no new data were
created or analysed in this study.
ORCID
Maximilian Nawrath https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1307-3394
Jessica C. Fisher https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1435-9247
Zoe G. Davies https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0767-1467
Helen Elsey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4724-0581
Paul Cooke https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8377-3118
Jayalaxshmi Mistry https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7582-3739
Martin Dallimer https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8120-3309
REFERENCES
Alderman, K., Turner, L. R., & Tong, S. (2012). Floods and human health: A
systematic review. Environment International, 47, 37–47. h t t p s : // doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. envint. 2012. 06. 003
Allmark, P. (200 4). Should research samples reflec t the diversity of the
population? Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(2), 185–189. h t t p s : // d o i .
org/ 10. 1136/ jme. 2003. 004374
Amir, A . P. H. (2019). Folk fil mmaking : A par ticipatory method fo r engag-
ing indigenous ethics and improving understanding. Conservation
and Society, 17(2), 123. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4103/ cs. cs_ 17_ 123
Arotoma- Rojas, I., Berrang- Ford, L., Zavaleta- Cor tijo, C., Ford, J. D., &
Cooke , P. (20 22 ). Indige nous peoples' perception s of the ir foo d sy s-
tem in the context of climate change: A case study of Shawi men in
the Peruvian Amazon. Sustainability, 14(24), 16502. https:// doi. org/
10. 3390/ su142 416502
Ba li , A ., & Kof inas, G. P. (2014 ). Voice s of the Ca ri bou peop le : A par tic ip a-
tory videography method to document and share loc al knowledge
from the North American human- Rangifer systems. Ecology and
Society, 19(2). h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 5 7 5 1 / E S - 0 6 3 2 7 - 1 9 0 2 1 6
Barbour, R . (2019). Introducing qualitative research: A student's guide.
In Introducing qualitative research: A student's guide. Sage Research
Methods. https:// doi. o rg / 10. 4135/ 97815 26 485 045
Barnet t, J., Tschakert, P., Head, L., & Adger, W. N. (2016). A science of
loss. Nature Climate Change, 6(11), 976–978. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1038/ nclim ate3140
Barriage, S., Li, X., Lopatovska, I., & Mabbot t, C. (2017). Visual re-
search methods with children and youth: Opportunities & chal-
lenges. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 54(1), 619–620. https:// doi. o rg / 10. 10 02 / pr a2. 20 17.
14505 4 010 90
Bates, C. (2013). Video diaries: Audio- visual research methods and the
elusive body. Visual Studies, 28(1), 29–37. http s:// doi. org / 10. 1080/
14725 86X. 2013. 765203
Baumann, S. E., Merante, M., Folb, B. L ., & Burke, J. G . (2020). Is film as a
research tool the future of public health? A review of study designs,
opportunities, and challenges. Qualitative Health Research, 30(2),
250–257. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10497 32319 871251
Bennett, N. J. (2016). Using perceptions as evidence to improve conser-
vation and environmental management. Conservation Biology, 30(3),
582–592 . https: // doi. org / 10. 1111/ cobi. 12681
Berardi, A., Bignante, E., Mistry, J., Simpson , M., Tschirhart, C., & Verwer,
C. (2015). How to find and share communit y owned solutions? A
Handbook. www. proje ctcob ra. org
Bezzina, L. (2022). Participatory video and diagramming with disabled
people in Burkina Faso reflections on methods, representation
and power. Disability & Society, 38, 1511–1533. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 09687 599. 2022. 2034599
Bignante, E ., Mistr y, J., Berardi, A., & Tschirhart , C. (2016). Feeling and
acting ‘different’ emotions and shifting self- perceptions whilst fa-
cilitating a par ticipatory video process. Emotion, Space and Society,
21, 5–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. emospa. 2016. 09. 0 04
Campbell, L. K., Svendsen, E. S., & Roman, L. A. (2016). Knowledge co-
production at the research–practice interface: Embedded case
studies from urban forestry. Environmental Management, 57(6),
1262–1280. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 0 0 2 6 7 - 0 1 6 - 0 6 8 0 - 8
Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural ap-
praisal. World Development, 22(7), 953–969.
Chambers, R. (2002). Participatory workshops. Earthscan.
Christensen, P., & James, A. (200 8). Research with children: Perspectives
and practices. In Research with children: Perspectives and practices
(2nd ed.). Routledge. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97802 03964576
|
1391
NAWRATH et al.
Connelly, L. M. (2016). Cross- se ctional survey research. Medsurg Nursing,
25(5), 369–370.
Cook, E. M., Berbés- Blázquez, M., Mannet ti, L. M., Grimm, N. B., Iwaniec,
D. M., & Muñoz- Erickson, T. A. (2021). Setting the stage for co-
produc tion. In Urban Book Series.. Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1 0 0 7 / 9 7 8 - 3 - 0 3 0 - 6 3 1 3 1 - 4 _ 7
Cornish, F., Breton, N., Moreno- Tabarez, U., Delgado, J., Rua, M., De-
Graft Aikins, A., & Hodgetts, D. (2023). Participatory action re-
search. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 3(1), 1–14. https:// doi. org/
1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 3 5 8 6 - 0 2 3 - 0 0 2 1 4 - 1
Cox, D. T. C. C., Shanahan, D. F., Hudson, H. L., Fuller, R. A., & Gaston, K. J.
(2018). The impact of urbanisation on nature dose and the implica-
tions for human health. Landscape and Urban Planning, 179(August),
72–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. landu rbplan. 2018. 07. 013
Day, S., Rennie, S., Luo, D., & Tucker, J. D. (2020). Open to the public:
Paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research
publishing. Research Involvement and Engagement, 6(1). h t t p s : // d o i .
o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 8 6 / s 4 0 9 0 0 - 0 2 0 - 0 1 8 2 - y
Dhakal, B. (2018). Statistical trends in literac y rates in Nepal. OSR Journal
of Applied Chemistry, 11(11), 71–77. h t t p s : // d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 9 7 9 0 / 5 7 3 6 -
11110 17177
Eastwood, A., Juárez- Bourke, A., Herrett, S., & Hague, A. (2023).
Connecting young people with greenspaces: The case for partici-
patory video. People and Nature, 5(2), 357–367. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1002/ pan3. 10236
Egid, B. R., Roura, M., Aktar, B ., Amegee Quach, J., Chumo, I., Dias, S.,
Hegel, G., Jones, L., Karuga, R., Lar, L., López, Y., Pandya, A., Norton,
T. C., Sheikhattari, P., Tancred, T., Wallerstein, N., Zimmerman, E.,
& Ozano, K. (2021). You want to deal with power while riding on
power': Global perspectives on power in participatory health re-
search and co- production approaches. BMJ Global Health, 6(11),
e006978. h t t p s : // d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 3 6 / b m j g h - 2 0 2 1- 0 0 6 9 7 8
Einarsdottir, J. (2005). Playschool in pictures: Children's photographs as
a research method. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 523–
541. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03004 43050 0131320
ElSabr y, E. (2017). Who needs access to research? Exploring the societal
impact of open access. Revue Française des Sciences de l'information et
de La Communication, 11, 0–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4000/ rfsic. 3271
Fischer, A., & Young, J. C. (2007). Understanding mental constructs of
biodiversity: Implications for biodiversity management and conser-
vation. Biological Conservation, 136(2), 271–282. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. biocon. 2006. 11. 024
Fisher, J. C., Irvine, K. N., Bicknell, J. E., Hayes, W. M., Fernandes, D.,
Mist r y, J. , & Davi es , Z. G. (20 20). Percei ve d bi od ivers it y, soun d, nat-
uralness and safety enhance the restorative quality and wellbeing
benefits of green and blue space in a neotropical cit y. Science of
the Total Environment, 755, 143095. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scito
tenv. 2020. 143095
Fisher, J. C., Mistry, J., Pierre, M. A., Huichang, Y., Harris, A., Hunte, N.,
Fern an des , D. , Bi ckn el l, J. E., & Dav ie s, Z. G. (2021) . Us in g par tici pa -
tory vi deo to share peopl e's experiences of n eotropical urban green
and blue space with decision- makers. The Geograph ical Journal, 187,
1–15. h tt ps :// doi. or g/ 10. 1111/ geoj . 124 06
Fraser, B., Chisholm, E., & Pierse, N. (2022). A failed at tempt at partic-
ipatory video with Takatāpui/LGBTIQ+ people who had experi-
enced homelessness. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
21, 160940692211036. https :// doi. org/ 10 . 1177/ 160 94 0 692 2
11036 63
Frit sch , O., & Ne wig , J. (2012). Partici patory gover nan ce and sustainabil-
ity: Findings of a meta- analysis of stakeholder involvement in envi-
ronment al decision making. In Reflexive governance for global public
goods (pp. 181–203). MIT Press. ht tp s:// doi. org / 10. 7551/ M ITP R
ESS/ 97802 62017 244. 003. 0195
Gardner, C. J., Struebig, M. J., & Davies, Z. G. (2020). Conservation must
capitalise on climate's moment. Nature Communications, 11(1), 10 –
11. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 1 4 6 7 - 0 1 9 - 1 3 9 6 4 - y
Gardner, C. J., & Wordley, C. F. R. (2019). Scientists must act on our own
warnings to humanity. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3(9), 1271–1272.
h t t p s : // d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 1 5 5 9 - 0 1 9 - 0 9 7 9 - y
Glaw, X., Inder, K ., Kable, A., & Hazelton, M. (2017). Visual methodol-
ogies in qualitative research: Autophotography and photo elici-
tation applied to mental health research. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 16 (1), 160940 691774821. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 16094 0 6917 74 8215
Grimshaw, A., & Ravetz, A. (2009). Rethinking observational cinema.
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 15, 538–556.
Gubrium, A. C., Hill, A. L ., & Flicker, S. (2014). A situated practice of eth-
ics for participator y visual and digital methods in public health re-
search and practice: A focus on digital story telling. American Journal
of Public H ealth, 104(9), 160 6–1614. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 2 1 0 5 / A J P H .
2013. 301310
Haynes, K., & Tanner, T. M. (2015). Empowering young people and
strengthening resilience: Youth- centred par ticipatory video as
a tool for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction.
Children's Geographies, 13(3), 357–371. https:// doi. org / 10. 10 80/
14733 285. 2013. 848599
Hunter, D., & Heywood, V. (2012). Crop wild relatives: A manual of in situ
conservation. In Crop wild relatives. Earthscan. https:// doi. org/ 10.
4324/ 97818 49775564
IPBES. (2019). The IPBES global assessment on biodiversity and ecosys tem
services. Chapter 2.1. Status and trends—drivers of change (issu e may) .
Julien, H., Given, L. M., & Opr yshko, A. (2013). Photovoice: A promising
method for studies of individuals' information practices. Libra ry and
Information Science Research, 35(4), 257–263. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. lisr. 2013. 04. 004
Kaley, A., Hatton, C., & Milligan, C. (2019). Health geography and the
“performative” turn: Making space for the audio- visual in ethno-
graphic health research. Health and Place, 60(January), 102210.
htt ps:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. healt hplace. 2019. 102210
Koningstein, M., & Azadegan, S. (2021). Participator y video for two- way
communication in research for development. Action Research, 19(2),
218–236. https:// doi. o rg / 10. 1177/ 14767 50318 762032
Kukull, W. A., & Ganguli, M. (2012). Generalizability: The trees, the
forest , and the low- hanging fruit. Neurology, 78(23), 1886–1891.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1212/ WNL. 0b013 e3182 58f812
Laituri, M., Luizza, M . W., Hoover, J. D., & Allegretti, A. M. (2023).
Questioning the practice of participation: Critical reflections on
participatory mapping as a research tool. Applied Geography, 152,
102900. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. apgeog. 2023. 102900
Lamichhane, D., & Thapa, H. B. (2012). Participatory urban forestry in
Nepal: Gaps and ways forward. Urban Forestr y & Urban Greening,
11(2), 105–111. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ufug. 2011. 07. 008
Leitch, R. (2008). Creatively researching children's narratives through
images and drawings. In Doing visual research with children and
young people. Routledge.
Literat , I. (2013). “A pencil for your thoughts”: Par ticipatory drawing as
a visual research method with children and youth. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 8 4–98. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 16094 0 6913 01200143
Lunch, N., & Lunch, C. (20 06). Insights into participatory video. A
Handbook for the F ield. In Text.
MacDougall, D. (2021). Transcultural Cinema. Princeton University Press.
Madani, K., Pierce, T. W., & Mirchi, A. (2017). Serious games on envi-
ronmental management. Sustainable Cities and Society, 29, 1–11.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scs. 2016. 11. 007
Martin, V. Y. (2020). Four common problems in environmental social re-
search undertaken by natural scientists. BioScience, 70(1), 13–16.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ biosci/ biz128
Marzi, S. (2021). Participatory video from a distance: co- producing
knowledge during the COVID- 19 pandemic using smar tphones.
Qualitative Research, 23, 509–525. htt ps:// doi. org / 10. 117 7/ 14687
94121 103 8171
1392
|
NAWRATH et al.
McDonald, B. (2021). Professional power struggles in par ticipatory re-
search. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 2(1), 1–7. ht tp s://
doi. org/ 10. 35844/ 001c. 18692
Milne, E. J. (2016). Critiquing participatory video: E xperiences from
around the world. Area, 48(4), 401–404. ht tp s:// doi. o rg / 10. 1111/
area. 12271
Milne, E. J., Mitchell, E., & De Lange, N. (2012). Handbook of participatory
video. Rowman & Lit tlefield.
Milner- Gulland, E. J. (2021). The global conservation movement is di-
vided but not diverse: Reflections on 2020. Oryx, 55(3), 321–322.
htt ps:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ s003 0 6 0532 100 048x
Mist ry, J., & Be rar di , A . (2 012). The cha llen ges and oppo r tun it ies of pa r ti c-
ipatory video in geographical research: Exploring collaboration with
indigen ous communities i n the North Rup ununi, Guyana . Area, 44(1),
110–116. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 1 4 7 5 - 4 7 6 2 . 2 0 1 1 . 0 1 0 6 4 . x
Mistr y, J., Berardi, A., Bignante, E., Jafferally, D., Nuzzo, C., Albert, G.,
Xavier, R., Rober tson, B., Haynes, L., & Benjamin, R. (2021). The
lasting impact of peer research with Indigenous communities of
Guyana , S outh America. In Peer research in health and social devel-
opment. Routledge. h t t p s : // d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 4 3 2 4 / 9 7 8 0 4 2 9 3 1 6 9 2 0 - 2 3
Mistr y, J., Berardi, A., Bignante, E., & Tschirhart, C. (2015). Bet ween a
rock and a hard place: Ethical dilemmas of local communit y facili-
tators doing participatory research projects. Geoforum, 61, 27–35.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. geofo rum. 2015. 02. 010
Mistr y, J., Berardi, A., Haynes, L., Davis , D., Xavier, R., & Andries, J.
(2014). The role of social memory in natural resource manage-
ment: Insights from par ticipatory video. Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers, 39(1), 115–127. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1111/ tran. 12 010
Mistr y, J., Berardi, A., Tschirhar t, C., Bignante, E ., Haynes, L., Benjamin,
R., Alber t, G., Xavier, R., Robertson, B., Davis, O., Jafferally, D., & De
Ville, G . (2016). Community owned solutions: Identifying local best
practices for socialecological sustainability. Ecology and Society,
21(2), 42. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 5 7 5 1 / E S - 0 8 4 9 6 - 2 1 0 2 4 2
Mistr y, J., Jaffer ally, D., Mendonca, S., Xavier, R., Albert, G., Robertson,
B., George, E., Benjamin, R ., & Ingwall- King, L . (2023). Video-
mediated dialogue for promoting equity in protected area con-
servation. Oryx, 57(3), 325–334. http s:// doi . or g/ 10. 1017/ S00 30
60532 2000904
Mistr y, J., & Shaw, J. (2021). Evolving social and political dialogue through
participatory video processes. Progress in Development Studies,
21(2), 196–213. http s:// doi . or g/ 10. 1177/ 146 49 9 3421 1016725
Mitche ll , C ., De L an ge , N., & Mol et sane, R. (2 01 8) . In tr odu ct ion: A fra me-
work for social change through participatory visual research. In
Participatory visual methodologies: Social change , community and pol-
icy. Sage Research Methods. ht tps:// doi . o rg / 10 . 4135/ 9 781 5 26 416
117. n1
Mitchell, C. M., & Sommer, M. (2016). Par ticipatory visual methodolo-
gies in global public healt h. Global Public Health, 11(5–6), 521–527.
htt ps:// doi. org / 10. 108 0/ 17441 692. 2016 . 1170184
Moletsane, R., Stuar t, J., Walsh, S., & Taylor, M. (200 8). Ethical issues in
using par ticipatory video in addressing gender violence in and around
schools: The challenges of representation. American Educational
Research Association.
Mueller, J. G., Ass anou, I. H. B., Dan Guimbo, I., & Almedom, A. M.
(2010). Evaluating rapid participatory rural appraisal as an assess-
ment of ethnoecological knowledge and loc al biodiversit y patterns:
Contributed paper. Conservation Biology, 24(1), 140–150. ht tps: //
d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 1 5 2 3 - 1 7 3 9 . 2 0 0 9 . 0 1 3 9 2 . x
Mukherjee, N., Zabala, A., Huge, J., Nyumba, T. O., Adem Esmail,
B., & Sutherland, W. J. (2018). Comparison of techniques for
eliciting views and judgements in decision- making. Methods
in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 54–63. http s:// doi. o rg / 10. 1111 /
2 0 4 1 - 2 1 0 X . 1 2 9 4 0
Murray, L., & Nash, M. (2017). The challenges of participant photogr a-
phy: A critical reflection on methodolog y and ethics in two cultural
contexts. Qualitative Health Research, 27(6), 923–937. ht tps:// d o i .
org / 10. 117 7/ 10497 32316 66 8819
Nawrath , M., Elsey, H., & Dallimer, M. (2021). Why cultural ecosystem
services matter most : Exploring the pathways linking greenspa-
ces and mental health in a low- income country. Science of the Total
Environment, 806, 150551. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scito tenv.
2021. 150551
Noyes, A. (2008). Using video diaries to investigate learner trajectories:
Researching the ‘unknown unknowns. In Doing visual re search with
children and young people. Routledge.
O'Donovan, J., Thompson, A., Onyilofor, C., Hand, T., Rosseau, N., &
O' Ne il , E. (2019). Th e us e of part icipa to ry vi su al meth od s wit h co m-
munity health workers: A systematic scoping review of the litera-
ture. Global Public Health, 14(5), 722–736. https :// doi. org/ 10. 108 0/
17441 692. 2018. 1536156
Pink, S. (2013). Doing visual ethnography. SAGE Publications.
Pink, S. (2014). Digital- visual- sensory- design anthropology: Ethnography,
imagination and intervention. Arts and Humanities in Higher
Education, 13(4), 412–427. ht tps:// doi. or g/ 10 . 1177/ 14740 2 2214
542353
Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros- Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). A ssessing,
mapping , and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at commu-
nity level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118–129. https:// doi. o rg / 10. 1016/j.
landu sepol. 2012. 12. 013
Plush, T. (2013). Fostering social change through participator y video:
A conceptual framework. Development Bulletin (Canberra),
75(October), 55–58.
Pörtner, H. O., Rober ts, D. C., Adams, H., Adler, C., A ldunce, P., Ali, E.,
Ara Begum, R., Bet ts, R., Bezner Kerr, R., Biesbroek, R., Birkmann,
J., Bowen, K., Castellanos, E., Cissé, G ., Constable, A., Cramer, W.,
Dodman, D., Eriksen, S. H., Fischlin, A., … Zaiton Ibrahim, Z . (2022).
Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. IPCC.
Pratt , B. (2019). Inclusion of marginalized groups and communities in
global health research priority- setting. Journal of Empirical Research
on Human Re search Ethics, 14(2), 169–181. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
15562 64619 833858
Raworth, K. (2017). A doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity's com-
pass in the 21st century. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(2), e48–e49.
h t t p s : // d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / S 2 5 4 2 - 5 1 9 6 ( 1 7 ) 3 0 0 2 8 - 1
Reed, M. S., & Rudman, H. (2023). Re- thinking research impact: Voice,
context and power at the inter face of science, policy and prac tice.
Sustainability Science, 18(2), 967–981. ht tps :// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s 1 1 6 2 5 - 0 2 2 - 0 1 2 1 6 - w
Richardson, P. (2022). Participatory video (remote, online). Gaia, 31(2),
82–84. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14512/ gaia. 31.2. 4
Robra, B., & Heikkuri nen, P. (2021). Degrow th and the su st ainab le deve l-
opment goals. In Decent work and economic growth (pp. 253–262).
Springer. h t t p s : // d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7/ 9 7 8 - 3 - 3 1 9 - 9 5 8 6 7 - 5 _ 3 7
Rose, E. J., Sierschynski, J., & Björling, E. A. (2016). Reflecting on reflec-
tions: Using video in learning reflection to enhance authenticity.
The Journal of Interactive Technolog y and Pedagogy, 9.
Saif, O., Keane, A., & Staddon, S. (2022). Making a case for the consid-
eration of trust , justice and power in conservation relationships.
Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation
Biology, 36(4), e13903. ht tps:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ cobi. 13903
Schwab- Cartas, J., & Mitchell, C . (2014). A t ale of two sites: Cellphones,
participatory video and indigeneity in community- based re-
search/Une Histoire, deux Endroit s: Téléphones Cellulaires,
Vidéo Participatif et Indigénéité dans un Contexte De Recherche
Communautaire. McGill Journal of Education, 49(3), 603–620.
Shaw, J. (2012). Interrogating the gap bet ween the ideals and practice
of participator y video. In Handbook of participatory video (pp. 225–
241). Altamira Press.
Shaw, J. (2016). Emergent ethics in par ticipatory video: Negotiating the
inherent tensions as group processes evolve. Area, 48(4), 419–426.
https :// doi. or g/ 10. 1111/ a re a. 12167
|
1393
NAWRATH et al.
Shaw, J., & Rober tson, C. (20 08). Participatory video: A practical approach
to using video creatively in group development work. Routledge.
Shayo, E. H., Norheim, O. F., Mboera, L. E. G ., Byskov, J., Maluka, S.,
Kamuzora, P., & Blystad, A. (2012). Challenges to fair decision-
making processes in the contex t of health care services: A quali-
tative assessment from Tanzania. International Journal for Equity in
Health, 11(1), 1–12. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 8 6 / 1 4 7 5 - 9 2 7 6 - 1 1 - 3 0
Simpson Reeves, L., & Hinthorne, L. L. (2019). Can visual methods ac tu-
ally challenge hierarchies? A case study from Papua New Guinea.
Community Development Journal, 54(3), 371–388. https:// doi. org/
10. 1093/ cdj/ bsx047
Sitter, K. C . (2012). Participator y video: Toward a method, advocacy and
voice (MAV) framework. Intercultural Education, 23(6), 541–554.
htt ps:// doi. org/ 10. 10 80/ 14 675 986. 20 12. 746842
Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Everard, M., & Geneletti, D. (2018).
Qualitative methods for ecologists and conservation scientists.
Methods i n Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 7–9. htt ps:// doi. org/ 10 . 1111/
2 0 4 1 - 2 1 0 X . 1 2 9 5 6
Swanson, S. S., & Ardoin, N. M. (2021). Communities behind the lens: A
review and critical analysis of visual participatory methods in biodi-
versity conservation. Biological Conservation, 262, 109293. h tt p s : //
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biocon. 2021. 109293
Tremblay, C., & Jayme, B. d. O. (2015). Communit y knowledge co-
creation through participatory video. Action Research, 13(3), 298–
314. h tt ps:// doi. org / 10. 1177/ 14767 50315 572158
Varghese, D., O livier, P., & Bartindale, T. (2020, A pril 21). Towards par-
ticipatory video 2.0. In Conference on human factors in computing
systems- proceedings. CHI conference on human factors. h t tp s : // doi.
org/ 10. 1145/ 33138 31. 3376694
Wa lms ley , J., St rnadov á, I ., & Joh nson, K . (20 18) . The a dde d value of i n c lu-
sive research. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities,
31(5), 751–759. ht tp s:// doi. o rg / 10. 1111 / jar. 124 31
Walsh, S. (2012). Challenging knowledge production with participatory
video. In Hand book of participatory video. Altamira Press. (pp. 242–256).
Walsh, S. (2016). Critiquing the politics of par ticipatory video and the
dangerous romance of liberalism. Area, 48(4), 405–411. ht t p s :// d o i .
org / 10. 1111/ ar ea . 1210 4
Wills, W. J., Dickinson, A. M., Meah, A., & Short , F. (2016). Reflections on
the use of visual methods in a qualitative study of domestic kitchen
practices. Sociology, 50(3), 470–485. ht tps:// doi. or g/ 10 . 1177/
00 3 8 0 3 8 515 587651
Zavaleta, C., Berrang- Ford, L., Ford, J., Llanos- Cuentas, A., Cárcamo, C.,
Ross, N. A., Lancha, G., Sherman , M., & Harper, S. L. (2018). Multiple
non- climatic drivers of food insecurity reinforce climate change
maladaptation trajectories among Peruvian Indigenous Shawi in
the Amazon. PLoS One, 13(10), 1–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ
al. pone. 0205714
How to cite this article: Nawrath, M., Fisher, J. C.,
Arotoma- Rojas, I., Davies, Z. G., Elsey, H., Cooke, P., Mistry, J.,
& Dallimer, M. (2024). Using participatory video in
environmental research. People and Nature, 6, 1382–1393.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10646
